These are pictures of a vase I saw at an auction preview in Seattle today. The vase is about 6.75 inches tall. Age wear on the ring around the pontil area. Super high quality work. The glass underfoot appears clear, and the cut back areas in the body appear to cut through an Aurene style outer layer with a storng texture, through the clear, and into an interior that appears a little opalescent. There is a very strong ridge around the rectangular areas, and the gilding is of the highest quality.

I sent images to Alfredo and he thought not Czech. He had not seen an underside like it before... In person it did not strike me as Loetz work, especially with multiple layers and an opalescent base..... I would say the vase you found is the definitely the same maker, but I do not think either were made by Loetz. I do not think the attribution is correct....

my first thought for it was actually American, but the enameling isn't typical. I know I've seen that textured iridescent glass somewhere before. When you say underside you mean pontil? I am unsure what looks so unusual about the base of this piece for Czech? I think this is a three layer glass. the thick iridescent layer, an opaline layer and then a clear layer.

I can't think of a thick iridescent glass from France. The only countries I can think of that were known for this type of thing were Bohemia, England and USA.

Hi, The opaline layer is the innermost interior layer, the clear is over that, and then the exterior is the irridized gold and textured layer. I think the fact that the exterior layer is cut back completely and the clear middle layer is exposed and appears polished on the bottom edges and the underside is what he was referring to. I can not think of a Czech piece I have seen done in this manner, especially by a company that could produce such a high quality piece of work. It did not strike me as Czech either... It was also amazingly heavy for a vase of it's size and had the feel of a paperweight decor of some kind..... Although it is obviously not.

Mont Joye did some iridescent glass (a little), and some very fine cameo and enameling work..... some of which (the cameo and enameling) is not unlike the caliber of work on this example...

I don't see why that would be so impossible as a Austrian factor ( on the pontil) I think mont joye is a real stretch I've seen some light iridescence on that kind of glass but never textured and golden like this one is. I've done a couple searches for French iridescent glass and turned up nothing other than an occasional light iridescent type thing.

Layered glass was not alien to Austrian producers. many did very capable cameo or ACB glass. So did the Americans. Quezal, Tiffany, Steuben, Durand, Nash and probably a couple others I am forgetting.

I think Mont Joye is a stretch also. I found some examples of iridescent glass with cameo and enamel by them, but nothing as textured as this is, or as light in color as the textured portions are. It may remain a mystery.... or someday I will open a book or hit a website doing something else, and it will pop out in front of me.... The style is extremely distinct, and my guess is that the output was quite limited.

Alfredo has the Passau catalogs, I do not (they are on my list for next book purchase), and if something like it was in there my gut feeling is that he would probably recognize it....

It does not strike me as an American piece, although nothing really surprises me with glass any more.

I have the Passau books too. There is nothing in there quite like it but they do not capture all of the production from Bohemia. There are a number of Bohemian glass pieces that I have seen that are not represented in those books. :)

the styling of it is quite odd but what I am going after when I say American is that I have seen textured iridescent glass like that from american manufacturers. (I just can't remember which one or where I saw it)

I know this is crazy talk and I'll probably get blasted for this, but I'll just come clean, I think I've seen Tiffany with this type of textured iridescent glass. I have no idea if that has any real possibility or not. I really don't know all that much about Tiffany glass.. but I think I saw this sort of thing in the museum exhibit at the museum of art in down town seattle a few years back.

I'll come clean... :angel: I was the under bidder..... Probably on several things you bought :thup: I would have bid more, but my recent purchases in Montana were a substantial drain on my available mad money... At least I know where it went....

I bought the three Willy Johansson Hadeland pieces... Not identified as Willy Johansson. One was described as not signed.. they missed the signature and did not mention the initials on any when describing signatures...

My tastes and studies are pretty diverse.

I bid online as I was unable to attend at the last minute....

There was also an original Schlevogt Malachite glass piece, not a Desna repop, designed by Artur Pleva that was described as a "green ashtray" (3 horses supporting an ashtray disc) but was not part of the online bidding and sold for $15. :huh:

They had some nice contemporary glass also... I bought (I use the term loosely for how low the price was ) the Miller modernist faceted crystal vase.....

yeah, I saw those go by. I had to curtail my spending. I had blown thru the preview late on saturday and only had time to confirm the condition on this vase and that there was indeed signatures on the FH pieces. I didn't see the malachite until it was on the block and I couldn't see what it looked like exactly from where the auctioneer was so passed. the set up was very poor for this auction.

I blew 670 (including tax and premium) dollars. that was enough lol. they did have quite an unusual collection of stuff. I went higher than I intended to go on the FH goblets but I also got this vase for less than I was prepared to go so I guess it balances. I don't have a sense of smell and ended up buying a cedar chest full of moth balls. My husband was very annoyed with me for that one. I had no idea it was full of them ( they are very very toxic and a carcinogen, I wonder if that contributed to his death)

I don't know if it's right or wrong (please tell me!), but I associate this kind of huge pontil mark with French work.

Is is possible the outer textured layer is actually enamel? It has a sort of painterly movement and blending of colors, and I'm not sure how you'd achieve it in glass. Maybe it's the photos, but to me it doesn't look that thick - the thickness seems like it's in the clear.

What's the rim like? Ground?

The Loetz-attributed vase doesn't look very similar to me in terms of style or texturing technique.

I do not typically associate a pontil style with a country. I find it can be an identifier for a particular company if you are trying to narrow it down within a country or region. I find it can also be used to eliminate particular makers in some cases, depending on the style, period and region you feel a piece is from.

Others may have a different opinion than mine, but that is what I have found, in my limited experience, to be more often true than not....

As far as the vase goes, I am going from memory here, but the rim is ground and gilt. There is thickness in the clear, but the iridescent surface is definitely not enamel.... My gut reaction to it was French the second I saw it, but am at a loss as to what company could have done it..... And I certainly could be wrong....

Would not be the first time... certainly will not be the last..

I have seen the surface treatment on a piece before, I just can not place when and where....

I can't decide if the rim is polished or ground. it's rounded and flat at the same time. FWIW there is gold that looks quite original covering the rim.

There is no way the texture is enameled. it's the glass that has that texture. the panel part of the glass is fairly thick. I don't have measurements but it's substantial. I don't know how they did it either. I plan on emailing all the existing companies I can think of to see if they made it. I sent off an email to baccarat with a link to this thread. I just found my camera charger this morning so I'll be taking pics and sending off photos to Harrach and Poschinger soon too as they both produced high quality cut glass as well as iridescent and enameled. Steuben and Durand also did cutting and iridescent but they weren't known for gilt decorating although I suppose this could have been sent off to a decorator.

there is a common perception that the french were the only ones to do large pontils but there are plenty of examples out there of bohemian glass with large pontils. ( if anyone wants to challenge me to do show examples I will too ; ) ) I'd be willing to bet I could find examples for America and England as well.

I am leaning towards bohemian myself on this. the example I saw with textured glass like this was American but the styling looks bohemian/Austrian

it could be French, but I can't think of a company who I'd peg as a likely suspect for it. It could be English too. Hell it's odd enough, it might be Russian and we just know nothing about russian glass companies.

My recollection was that it looked slightly ground at the very top, so as to be able to provide a definitive boundary for the application of the enamel on the rim. Alisa can also correct me, but I believe that the bottom border of the iridescent area starting at the rim and dropping to the upper shoulder has an expertly applied thin gilt line at the bottom of that area. It appeared to provide a transition line, or border, from the iridescent glass to the clear shoulder. The change from iridescent to clear in this area is a slope, allowing for the smooth area where the color transitions. The gilt line appeared to make it look otherwise. The panels have been cut horizontal to the surface in the main body, creating the thickness of the panels. As Alisa said, the panels are quite thick, I would say at least 1/8 inch, and maybe 3/16 inch. There have been large thick areas of class removed from this piece to create the clear areas on the body.

The enamel work on the piece was quite good.

Alisa, Please correct me if my memories of the execution are incorrect.

Hope this made sense.... Having seen it I can say it is a wonderfully executed piece of glass.

The texturing has gotten me very curious! It puzzles me how lines could bend around the edge of the panel, as they seem to do in the lower boxed area of Craig's photo below (I hope it's OK with you, Craig, that I copied and altered your photo for illustrative purposes). Alisa, can you post a close-up of the texture please when you take your photos? One of the gilt transition between the top band and the clear below it would also be appreciated. It seems like the border between the textured top band and the clear (under the gilt) isn't a well-defined straight line, as you would expect if it were cut - but maybe I'm seeing things!? I can see that the panels are quite proud of the clear areas, but because their rims are gilt it's hard to tell from the photos how much of that is the yellowish part and how much is part of the clear layer.

Is the color variation in the textured areas a result of different colors, or different depths?

The line below o the edge of the panel is applied gilt decor done after the panels were cut. they are applied to the clear area of the surface that has been cut back....

Alisa can clarify for sure, but I believe the irregularity that seems to show in the image is actually the difference in reflective characteristics between the actual iridescent glass and the gilt line I remember as being there. A different angle may show it better... or show that my memory of the piece has failed me yet again!!

The differences in color of the panels is based on depth of surface texture and also slightly varying angles and the reaction to light at the different angles. The color on the textured surface is not deep at all, and appears to merely be a thin surface application and not a thick layer of glass.

The panels are quite proud of the clear on the body of the vase. Likely more than any other ACB piece I have seen.

On a side note, I looked at the surface of the clear glass with a strong loop and the quality of the cutback work is quite good, showing fewer remnants of the ACB process than most pieces I have seen.

The panels are quite proud of the clear on the body of the vase. Likely more than any other ACB piece I have seen. On a side note, I looked at the surface of the clear glass with a strong loop and the quality of the cutback work is quite good, showing fewer remnants of the ACB process than most pieces I have seen.

Maybe because it is not ACB. Cutting raised panels has been a design feature in Bohemian glass since the early 19th century - and still is today (cf. Egermann paneled glass, early 1980s)

It looks like a showcase done for an exhibition - combining all the techniques in the house: ACB, cutting, gilding and enameling. I would think of Moser, Loetz, Rindskopf or Heckert - but I might skip a few obvious ones....

I was going to say the same thing as Ivo about the areas around the panels being cut, not etched, but after losing two posts I gave up. I don't see any etched areas on it.

Quote

The panels on the brandy you posted are amazingly similar to the work on this vase.

Panels in this shape were very common for a long time, and continue to be made today.

Thanks for the additional photos, Alisa.

I still think the panels are enamelled because of the pattern of color variation, the little black specks in the yellow and the fact that the edges of the textured areas (covered by the gilt lines) aren't straight, as they would be if cut after application. I also don't see any clear glass in the thin areas of texture; if anything, it looks white. Is that correct? (I say "yellow" though it looks more of a gold color.) I suggest the areas were painted with white enamel then yellow, sprayed with oxides for iridescence, then tooled a bit while still moderately wet.

The Loetz-attributed vase looks to me like a better candidate for texture made by casing and acid cutback, though it's hard to be sure from the photo.

the panels are not enameled. they are definitely glass thru and thru. You can see quite clearly thru the waves and the dimples are absolutely curved pieces of glass. you can see it. there is nothing else it could be. You've got two people here who have held this piece and agree that it's glass :)

they have been making paneled glass since the 1860's (iirc) but I don't know how it's done. the black specks in the Yellow are dirt/soot/tar. I am afraid to wash this piece.

Ivo, an exhibition piece would make sense for this piece. it's the only explanation so far that makes sense as to why they'd combine all these strange and overpowering elements in one little vase.

the loetz attributed piece is definitely the same glass house imho. it's the same kind of work just a slightly different texture and color of iridescence.

I absolutely support the observation that it is textured glass and not enameled. I held the piece and studied it for quite some time at the preview. It was the primary reason I went to the preview. It is simply less consistent looking because the surface was textured to begin with. If you are seeing white, you may be looking at thin iridescence where oxides were sparsely applied, then through the clear layer underneath and at the opalescent white inner vessel.

The other piece which is attributed by Rago as Loetz IMHO is absolutely the same house... but again, I do not believe the attribution to be correct.

the panels are not enameled. they are definitely glass thru and thru. You can see quite clearly thru the waves and the dimples are absolutely curved pieces of glass. you can see it. there is nothing else it could be. You've got two people here who have held this piece and agree that it's glass :) Very good point! I must be seeing it completely wrong in the photos.

they have been making paneled glass since the 1860's (iirc) but I don't know how it's done. The same general shape of panel can be seen at least from 1840, and other shapes go back decades further. They are traditionally cut, but were also pressed; I wouldn't be surprised if they were mold-blown and etched as well. the black specks in the Yellow are dirt/soot/tar. Oh, I thought they were in the glass itself. I am afraid to wash this piece.

Looking at all Ailsa's photos the method of manufacture looks quite straightforward. White/opal cased in clear, blown into a textured mould and irridised. Design/panels cut back and the gilding applied to all edges and the pattern. The design strikes me as "Egyptian"

That doesn't address the bit that has always intrigued me - the apparent blending of colors in the textured area. There seems to be a texture that goes with that, and an independent(?) texture made of all the diagonal straight lines. I was seeing some of it wrong before the add'l photos - I thought I was seeing white where it was just a reflection, so it's quite possible I'm seeing it wrong now, too. Perhaps the little diagonal "gouges" brought white up to the surface, which was then tooled with a dark yellow layer? Or frits were marvered on, fused then tooled?

Galle and Daum used an amazing array of surface decorations...I'd be looking toward French, myself.

I think you're reading too much into pictures Kristi, there's no reason why a rough textured mould (cire predue) shouldn't have been used and those colours seem more likely to be the iridescence rather than frit.

When I read Christines's comment about it looking Egyptian I thought maybe not exactly but probably North African in influence and maybe further west. It struck me as possibly Moroccan or more likely Algerian in 'style' and if it was made by a French company this would make a certain kind of sense (French colonial influences).

That surface is iridescence.... and has nothing to do with frit.... The variations have to do with the use of a textured mold and how the oxides were applied.... I am going from memory here, as I was the Loser :cry: (under bidder), but the pictures exaggerate the variations in surface color above and beyond how it actually appears in person. (as digital images often do)

I still haven't seen any French work with this kind of iridescence. Galle and Daum were mentioned but I did a search and no iridescent pieces come up from them. Has anyone actually seen anything remotely similar to this from France or any companies that were working in a medium that used quality iridescence like this. From what I understand iridescent glass is not easy to do and this is especially fine quality iridescence so I wouldn't expect it to be from a company that wasn't highly experienced in producing this kind of ware. to my way of looking at it, we need to be trying to find a company that did a lot of iridescent work. Yes? I haven't been able to find a company in France that did a lot of iridescence ( in glass, lots did work in pottery) if it is France I am thinking it has to be a small studio not a well known company. If anyone can think of a french producer that made high quality iridescent work speak up. the fine layer of iridescent on legras and daum don't really count. I don't think that was very high end iridescent work. it's just a very fine sprinkle on the glass ala fritz heckert, (who also had very large pontils) I don't think that required that much know how.

another company that has crossed my mind is Poschinger.

I think it's much more likely to find the answers in Bohemia or England Or even America in a company like Durand or Quezal or something like that.

Do make sure you get to the glassworks of Robert Held in Vancouver (just a stone's throw away from Seattle) and see in practice what iridescence is about. Also try and respect the information given earlier. You might want this piece to be American, you might want it to be French or you might want it to be English - it still looks unavoidable that it is a Bohemian piece, using Bohemian techniques, Bohemian designs and Bohemian finishes.

you seem to say that there is a quality to iridescence which is indicative of a maker or even a country or origin. Well, there is not - so why not get acquainted with the art of iridescence which is best illustrated in the Held works around the corner where all pieces are iridised ? You seem to say that techniques have changed in the past 100 years or so. But they have not. You seem to suggest this piece is French - against all odds. And you should not take this personal.

I have NEVER said that I thought this piece was french. please re-read my posts.

What is funny here is that you and I are the only people in this thread that do not think it is french. I don't think it's impossible that it's french because you just never know. I just do not think it's the most likely theory as there are NO french makers that regularly put out a high quality iridescent ware. I think its more likely to be American, English Or Bohemian as they did put out large quantities of high quality iridescent glass. The styling elements are also most like others from Bohemia. But England also did a lot of similar work to Bohemia. America put out all kinds of crazy stuff.

as far as I am concerned it could be from anywhere in the world right now as there are no real solid clues.

but basically what I come away from with your original post is that if someone disagrees with you, they are not showing you respect to your mind. I think that is flawed. You do not learn if you do not question. it does not show lack of respect.

as it was I was "respecting" the opinions of others here in trying to find a reason why everyone keeps saying France for this piece.

Grovers' Carved and Decorated European Art Glass shows four Galle pieces, "all with a slight iridescent surface." They also say that de Caranza was probably best known for his iridescent finishes.

What about the iridescence on this piece says it's particularly high quality? Not being catty, I'm just curious what separates it, and what makes a low-quality iridescent surface.

Here's what I see; please tell me, Alisa or Craig, if this is wrong: I see the iridescence on the surface, which would have been sprayed on after the piece was formed (not a particularly difficult procedure these days, anyway). When in shadow, so the iridescence doesn't hide what's beneath, I see a golden layer with lighter waves that follow the contour of the texture (apart from the diagonal lines). This is under the iridescent layer, which is only a few molecules thick.

(I wonder if the dark specks on it could be larger bits of oxides??)

The ribboning and texture could easily be explained if the golden layer were enamel (which is, after all, just modified glass), but since it's not, I'm curious about how it was done. (Pretty silly, I suppose, to be so interested in technique when I'm not even a glassmaker myself!) No big deal, though it could be a clue as to maker if another example were found.

Just so I'm not lumped in any particular camp, I really don't know where it's from.

I will have to let Alisa confirm this, but if memory serves me correctly the iridescence is over a clear layer, which in the area where the iridescence is thin, allows the inner white opalescent vessel show through. Depending on what angle the iridescence was applied from, the "shadow" effect of the higher areas of the texture would account for variations in the intensity of the iridescence as a result of thickness of application.

Nothing on the piece about the iridescence says higher quality than the iridescence on many other nice pieces. The overall visual impact and feel of the piece, having seen and held it to examine it, speaks volumes to the level of execution. For a piece displaying many techniques, it is one of the better executed pieces I have ever seen in person..... None of the images really do the vase justice.......

In general, let me address my thoughts on the "French" controversy. I started this thread with French being a question of possibility. It was my initial reaction to the piece. Hence, the title includes French?? I did that....

I originally posted this in the hopes that someone would recognize and identify it before I bid on it at the auction.... No one did, and Alisa had a deeper pocket than mine at the time of sale, so she is the proud owner, and not I. :cry: :cry:

I have researched and looked, since the auction, for information that would tend to lead me one direction or another and have not found anything that I would consider to be solid enough to make me lean a new direction on the piece. I really have no vested interest in where it is from, and I really do not care at all, I only am curious, as is Alisa since she owns it.... :cry: :cry: :cry: (I can't help myself). I understand and hear all of the reasons that people think it may be Bohemian, I personally am inclined to think that if not French, Bohemian is most likely. I do not see the piece as American in any light. I also have a tough time getting behind an English attribution... There is a little voice, that sometimes speaks to me and when it does I listen, and on this piece it keeps talking French to me.

I would look to the enamel work and the feel and style of it as my greatest indicator.... and I could be all wet here, but my gut says no at this point...

There is conversation here that no one can locate a French company that did his type of iridescent work, but if the piece were that easy to identify we would not be spending this much time on it. There are French companies, as noted additionally here by Kristi, that did work in iridescent glass, examples are just not that easy to locate.... The fact that this piece is so over the top in execution, yet so difficult to attribute is part of what makes me look in the direction of the less likely.

IMHO if it were Bohemian, with Truitt, Passau catalogs, Ricke, etc...and the many other fine pieces of documentation we have available to us, it would seem to me that somewhere, through all of the documentation, someone would have taken a picture of a piece like this. No one has been able to do that.

With that said, and with the only other very similar piece we can reference to in a picture is a Loetz attribution by Rago on a piece I would bet heavily is by the same house and not by Loetz, my gut continues to say it feels French.

In light of all of this, my instincts say look to the unexpected, especially if looking to the much more obvious fails a result.

I have never seen an underside such as that on a Kralik piece.... Neither had Alfredo....I still don't think so.. I am far from convinced.....That example would not be the first piece of glass in the wrong case at the Passau....Craig

there are reasons to doubt the Josephinehutte and Harrach cases as they were tampered with without adequate research, when originally a lot of research had been done. The Unknown cases are still mostly unknown and what has been 'solved" in them has been done so inconclusively and based on conjecture but there is no proof and the shapes being compared are not exact.

there is no reason do doubt the Kralik case that I am aware of. Just because you and Alfredo haven't seen something does not make it invalid. I trust the museum more than I trust random people on the internet.

I handled the vase extensively and took many images of it. Oh, that's right, I posted it....

It is unlike any piece of Kralik I have seen, or seen an example of......

Completely different. It is unlike their cameo work..... It is textured unlike other known examples.... the clear finish bottom is not found on any of their other work, especially with a huge over sized pontil area, and the enamel work is unlike any Kralik example that I am aware of, other than possibly the one similar piece you reference as being in the Kralik case at Passau.

Regardless of the Passau example, and regardless of Alfredo, I still do not think it is Kralik..... One similar sample in one case is not an attribution....... There have been Kralik pieces in Loetz cabinets at Passau, there have been Kralik pieces in Rindskopf cases at Passau, there have been Kralik examples in the unknowns at Passau...... and those are only the mistakes I can recall quickly relating to glass I have an interest in and cases I have seen images of...... but I guess they could have been correct on everything they put in the Kralik case... IMHO odds would be against it, but I suppose it could be possible.

It is a great collection of glass and a great museum, but they are understaffed and likely a little overwhelmed.....

Feel free to post any supporting documentation you can get from them to reinforce the attribution.... I would be very interested in seeing it....

In case you didn't see it, I guess you probably did, but this vase auctioned recently that looks to me to be the same maker.http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOETZ-or-Kralik-Uranium-Vaseline-Vase-Cut-Iridized-GOLD-Enamel-painted-/271067922252?nma=true&si=MrJ2S0h3%2BZpiywkWXdFrMF4ZfOU%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557m

I did see this. I wanted to bid very badly but unfortunately my budget was over spent already :)

PMC does have these as Kralik. I saw nothing like this at Harrach or in any of the museums that have Riedel. Basically there was nothing else like this except for in the Kralik case. I think they are very likely high quality Kralik.

I've asked the owner of the vase that sold if we can use his pictures so we have another shape on the board.In the meantime I found this one advertised as Loetz Creta Chine which I don't think it is :-\ however, the decor on the vase seems remarkably similar to the iridescent panels on the OP's vase.http://www.rubylane.com/item/842717-4659/Loetz-1896-Creta-Chine-Hand

yeah I don't know what they think they're seeing in the loetz book that would co-respond to that piece? I think that is rindskopf or something along those lines. def not loetz. I think a few companies made wavy snakeskin type glass like that.